Honestly, I think it's pretty mediocre, but the wife loves it. Rice noodles, beef, eggs, veggies (carrots, green beans, lima beans, peas, diced potatoes, corn), soy sauce and spices (garlic, pepper). I dice up the beef, cook it up with eggs, then put it together with the noodles and veggies. Soy to taste. Fast, simple, easy.

Nothing to riot over.

Hmm. I've never worked green/lima beans or potatoes into a stir fry before. What the hell, I'll give it a go. I usually use rice on the side or in the stir fry since I've not had the best of luck with noodles not in soup form. Do you precook them and hit them with cold water before incorporating them in?

Altitude5280:I couldn't bring myself to watch Don West's presser. But it sounds like it was horrible. [img.photobucket.com image 800x600]

People were expecting groveling or something, begging for forgiveness for doing their job.Instead, they voiced their anger against the state's errors and chicanery and the media for manipulating everything about this.

Also, rumors abounding at the moment that some white people have already been killed as a result of the verdict. Zimmerman's lawyers aren't responsible for that.

iq_in_binary:In short, I am (or was, now that I'm not on the job anymore and relocated to a city where I didn't have a bunch of people rather pissed at me) the epitome of the reason to be paranoid and walk around armed, and even I find some very big and glaring issues with this ruling. Whether or not you chose to address them is up to you. But as someone who had big reason to be concerned over this who is quite invested in legal self defense, quit it with your pretentious shiat.

Well, it wasn't a "ruling" it was a "verdict"; but either way, as in any court of law, the decision hinges on the way the argument was framed. The issue, as I mentioned above, hinged here on when the incident started. If it began when Zimmerman got out of his car, then a case could have been made for following, menacing, the whole thing as you said; but it did not, at least not for the purposes of the jury's verdict. The only thing they were deciding was whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger. Anything that led up to that is pretty much irrelevant except to excluding 2d degree murder (malice). Once it was established Zimmerman had no specific intent to kill Trayvon Martin, then whether he was following or menacing or whatever would make no difference.

That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Contrabulous Flabtraption:Why are so many of you so CERTAIN Zim randomly decided that night was the night he was going to murder a defenseless black kid? What possible reason do you have to make you believe that?

Statements like the above is why you show up in bright red on my screen. I realize you were responding to someone else's skirt statement, but good Lord. Were you even watching the same trial the rest of us were?

Should note, though, the statement about not deliberately provoking any type of physical altercation while carrying a firearm is basic firearm safety and a good point in general.

sjcousins:lantawa: sjcousins: Full Metal Retard: sjcousins: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

According to the man who shot him you mean?

As opposed to the fantasy stories made up by the race industry? Yes. Sad to say, but they went by the evidence presented in a court of law.

So you accept unquestioningly that Martin started the fight despite the fact that the only evidence comes from the man who shot him, whos freedom relies on claiming self defense, but everything else is 'fantasy' made up by the 'race industry'. Yep, you sound like a reasonable individual sound of mind. What the fark is the race industry anyway?

herpa derpa doo?

I'm going to assume that's your idea of refutation not imitation and dismiss you as a complete and utter moron.

Okay, I'm quoting too many quotes. Are you saying that Trayvon Martin started the fight? Because, if you are, then I agree with you...that is all. (too many quotes and too many Majitos). If you're the guy talking about "race industry" and "fantasy", then I am disagreeing with you....more simple this way, yaknow. No,damn, I'm re-reading and still confused. I blame it on you. YOU'RE DRUNK...

It can also be irrelevant, if Martin felt threatened, then he was well within his rights to as the law puts it stand his ground. Of course since he's dead, we can't find out if he did indeed felt threatened.

Incidentally, no matter your feelings on Zimmerman, you should at least be somewhat happy about the outcome of the trial. Because it *SHOULD* be hard as fark to convict someone for something like murder; if there's enough reasonable doubt (whether it's due to the defendant actually being innocent, a lack of evidence or just a shiatty prosecutor), an acquittal means the system works.

An anti-war and anti-racism activist group called an emergency march in San Francisco in protest of the "not guilty" verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

The ANDSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition and the Party for Socialism and Liberation called for the march after a jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

The march began at 8 p.m. at 24th and Mission Streets. Our helicopter flew over the scene at 9 p.m. and found about 200 people marching down Mission Street, many carrying yellow signs that read things like "the whole system is racist" and "the people say guilty."

ChaosStar:Elegy: ChaosStar: Even going out and getting her gun from the car wasn't against the law if it was her place.

It technically wasn't her home. Her and her SO had separated, and she was living elsewhere, and she had a restraining order taken out against him. She went over there thinking he wasn't home, and he was.

And you can't leave a confrontation, grab a gun, and return with it. That is not "standing your ground" under any definition of the term, or the self-defense laws of any state. The fact that she was able to get away and returned with a firearm, and the fact that the 911 call her SO was on where she could clearly be heard saying "I got something for you" and then shooting.....

Like the Zimmerman case, this is not the civil rights case people are looking for.

If she was still considered an owner of the property, she had a right to be there.She could also go and get her gun, as it's still her property, and return to collect her things. Doesn't even need a ccp, as it's her property. This isn't leaving a confrontation then returning, it's leaving a confrontation and going back to her original purpose. A new confrontation, legally speaking, would have began once she returned to the house.He came at her, size being taken into account of disparity of force, she could have shot him to protect herself from potential lethal force.She didn't though, she fired a warning shot, that's illegal.

Again, this is all assuming she was still an owner of the property or had a legal right to be there. I don't know all the facts in the case so I'm only giving out information on one potential scenario.

Also, in several news articles I have seen on that incident, the SO admits to having been abusive and testified in her defense, saying that yes, she did fire a warning shot because she was friggin terrified at the time--he's said that to the media, so the idea that she was even prosecuted was absurd. Twenty years in prison is beyond ridiculous.

Gyrfalcon:iq_in_binary: In short, I am (or was, now that I'm not on the job anymore and relocated to a city where I didn't have a bunch of people rather pissed at me) the epitome of the reason to be paranoid and walk around armed, and even I find some very big and glaring issues with this ruling. Whether or not you chose to address them is up to you. But as someone who had big reason to be concerned over this who is quite invested in legal self defense, quit it with your pretentious shiat.

Well, it wasn't a "ruling" it was a "verdict"; but either way, as in any court of law, the decision hinges on the way the argument was framed. The issue, as I mentioned above, hinged here on when the incident started. If it began when Zimmerman got out of his car, then a case could have been made for following, menacing, the whole thing as you said; but it did not, at least not for the purposes of the jury's verdict. The only thing they were deciding was whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger. Anything that led up to that is pretty much irrelevant except to excluding 2d degree murder (malice). Once it was established Zimmerman had no specific intent to kill Trayvon Martin, then whether he was following or menacing or whatever would make no difference.

That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

The issue still stands that you can instigate yourself into a situation where you are the aggressor and kill someone in self defense. That's the heart of this discussion, at least for me. C'mon, I'm on your side and you know it :-P